for those of you knowledgeable of the case,

My thoughts on this are that Stanford University was an indispensable
defendant which was never prosecuted, therefore the criminal prosecution-conviction of Elizabeth Holmes was discriminatory and should have been thrown out of court. If she had not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by Stanford), the wealthy
investors would have early turned their heads away.

Any other thoughts?

I learned about the prosecution only about 6 months ago upon reading a commentary by Alan Dershowitz who felt the prosecution was weird as
wrongfully favoring the wealthy investors.

The case is now in the 9th Circuit. The basis of the appeal is a mass of Daubert stuff.

Daniel Myers

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Daniel M <dhmatbestdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:

for those of you knowledgeable of the case,

My thoughts on this are that Stanford University was an
indispensable defendant which was never prosecuted, therefore the
criminal prosecution-conviction of Elizabeth Holmes was
discriminatory and should have been thrown out of court. If she
had not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by Stanford),
the wealthy investors would have early turned their heads away.

Except in the case of a conspiracy, there's no such thing as an
indispensible defendant in a criminal case. A prosecutor has
discretion as to whether to charge someone for a crime. Perhaps they
thought that Stanford was as much a victim as anybody else.

Any other thoughts?

I learned about the prosecution only about 6 months ago upon
reading a commentary by Alan Dershowitz who felt the prosecution
was weird as wrongfully favoring the wealthy investors.

Dershowitz used to have a good reputation. But in recent years he
seems to have gone off the rails and has been spouting all sorts of
nonsense.

The case is now in the 9th Circuit. The basis of the appeal is a
mass of Daubert stuff.

The appeal is unlikely to be successful. But you never know.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 13 Jun 2023 21:44:17 -0700 (PDT),
Daniel M <dhmatbestdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:

for those of you knowledgeable of the case,

My thoughts on this are that Stanford University was an indispensable >defendant which was never prosecuted,

I'm rather knowledgeable about this. AIUI prosecutors are not supposed
to prosecute unless they expect to get a conviction, and I'm sure that
means many people etc. who are guilty are never prosecuted.

therefore the criminal prosecution-conviction of Elizabeth Holmes was discriminatory

Not all discrimination is illegal. Only when it's based on race,
religion, national origin or in some jurisdictions sex, physical
handicap, age, sexual identity... I can't keep track, but being the only
one prosecuted is not in the list.

and should have been thrown out of court. If she had not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by Stanford), the wealthy investors would have early turned their heads away.

So is Stanford supposed to know in advance that she will do bad things,
and then not admit her? Is every college responsible for what their
students do? She didn't even graduate, that is, they never awarded her
a degree. Channing Robertson appears to have endorsed her. Does that
make the university liable? Or even him if he didn't lie about
anything. Was he prosecuted?

Any other thoughts?

I learned about the prosecution only about 6 months ago upon reading a >commentary by Alan Dershowitz who felt the prosecution was weird as >wrongfully favoring the wealthy investors.

He has said a lot of insightful things, but he sometimes has weird
views. Maybe he has turned into a contrarian. I forget one of them
but another was iirc going back weeks that he thinks trump is innocent
of something I think he's clearly guilty of.

The case is now in the 9th Circuit. The basis of the appeal is a mass of Daubert stuff.

Daniel Myers

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Daniel M" wrote in message news:321f0d4d-6cbe-4d6e-a44d-490a127f2f3dn@googlegroups.com...

for those of you knowledgeable of the case,

My thoughts on this are that Stanford University was an indispensable >defendant which was never prosecuted, therefore the criminal >prosecution-conviction of Elizabeth Holmes was discriminatory and should
have been thrown out of court. If she had not been admitted to Stanford >(thereby sponsored by Stanford), the wealthy investors would have early >turned their heads away.

Any other thoughts?

I learned about the prosecution only about 6 months ago upon reading a >commentary by Alan Dershowitz who felt the prosecution was weird as >wrongfully favoring the wealthy investors.

The case is now in the 9th Circuit. The basis of the appeal is a mass of >Daubert stuff.

Daniel Myers

That's like saying her parents should have been defendants since if she was never born, the investors also wouldn't have been interested. Stanford did nothing illegal or wrong in admitting her for admission. Her actions after that were her own responsibility

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Daniel M <dhmatbestdotcom@gmail.com>:

for those of you knowledgeable of the case,

My thoughts on this are that Stanford University was an indispensable >defendant which was never prosecuted, therefore the criminal prosecution-conviction of Elizabeth Holmes was discriminatory and should
have been thrown out of court. If she had not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by Stanford), the wealthy investors would
have early turned their heads away.

That's just silly. There's no way Stanford could have predicted that
she among their thousands of students would drop out and use her
contacts to commit crime. It's not like they have a course on How To
Create a Fraudulent Startup.

In 1776, Nathan Hale was executed for espionage, having disguised
himself as a schoolteacher based on his Yale degree. Was that Yale's
fault?

I learned about the prosecution only about 6 months ago upon reading a >commentary by Alan Dershowitz who felt the prosecution was weird as >wrongfully favoring the wealthy investors.

That's a closer call and there is no question that the board failed to supervise her. I'm surprised if they're not sued by people harmed by
the fake tests. On the other hand Henry Kissinger is 100 years old and
many of the others aren't much younger. By the time a trial was
scheduled, it'd be too late.

The case is now in the 9th Circuit. The basis of the appeal is a mass of Daubert stuff.

Daubert is about whether to accept expert testimony, and it doesn't
take an expert to tell that Theranos was a fraud. If the court thought
there was a reasonable chance the conviction would be overturned, she
wouldn't be in prison now.



--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/13/2023 9:44 PM, Daniel M wrote:

The case is now in the 9th Circuit. The basis of the appeal is a mass of Daubert stuff.

Daniel Myers

In May, the appeals court ruled that Holmes had not raised a
"substantial question" regarding the conduct of her trial or shown that
any trial errors were likely to result in reversal or a sentence shorter
than the 11-year, three-month prison term handed down by U.S. District
Judge Edward Davila.

She is at the federal women’s prison camp in Bryan, Texas which is a
minimum security facility. It was selected to be close to family and is surrounded by homes and enclosed by chain-link fencing topped with
barbed wire.

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/bry/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 12:29:30 PM UTC-7, Roy wrote:

On 6/13/2023 9:44 PM, Daniel M wrote:

The case is now in the 9th Circuit. The basis of the appeal is a mass of Daubert stuff.

Daniel Myers

In May, the appeals court ruled that Holmes had not raised a
"substantial question" regarding the conduct of her trial or shown that
any trial errors were likely to result in reversal or a sentence shorter
than the 11-year, three-month prison term handed down by U.S. District
Judge Edward Davila.

She is at the federal women’s prison camp in Bryan, Texas which is a minimum security facility. It was selected to be close to family and is surrounded by homes and enclosed by chain-link fencing topped with
barbed wire.

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/bry/

Holmes' attorneys never raised a discriminatory prosecution claim over the exclusion of Stanford University as a defendant. This could otherwise have raised a "substantial question" for the appeals court so she could avoid jail pending appeal.

Stanford intentionally and purposefully created a salient factor in all of her dealings through its undergraduate admissions. In a January 19, 2023 prosecution paper, the U.S. Attorneys said, "There are not two systems of justice, one for the wealthy,
one for the poor. There is one criminal justice system in this country". How about one for the individual, and one for the schools who install the elites into power?

I think it's noteworthy for comparison that a wealthy medical CEO Hansjorg Wyss was never prosecuted for his device failures, but he did give Harvard $700 million dollars since 2009. I couldn't find any donations online from Holmes to Stanford.
Stanford has become a very wealthy real estate developer, operating under the non-profit veil, who could pay off Holmes' restitution of hundreds of millions of dollars to the investors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 14 Jun 2023 22:01:38 -0700 (PDT),
Daniel M <dhmatbestdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 12:29:30 PM UTC-7, Roy wrote:

On 6/13/2023 9:44 PM, Daniel M wrote:

The case is now in the 9th Circuit. The basis of the appeal is a mass of Daubert stuff.

Daniel Myers

In May, the appeals court ruled that Holmes had not raised a
"substantial question" regarding the conduct of her trial or shown that
any trial errors were likely to result in reversal or a sentence shorter
than the 11-year, three-month prison term handed down by U.S. District
Judge Edward Davila.

She is at the federal women’s prison camp in Bryan, Texas which is a
minimum security facility. It was selected to be close to family and is
surrounded by homes and enclosed by chain-link fencing topped with
barbed wire.

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/bry/

Holmes' attorneys never raised a discriminatory prosecution claim over the exclusion of Stanford University as a defendant.

Because it would have been rejected.

This could otherwise have raised a "substantial question" for the appeals court so she could avoid jail pending appeal.

No, because it wouldn't have been substantial. In fact such a claim
would clearly be invalid.

Stanford intentionally and purposefully created a salient factor in all of her dealings through its undergraduate admissions.

Again, you're saying it "purposefully" created a danger by admitting her
as a freshman undergrad. Isn't hat what you're saying? How are they
to know who will become a fraudster and who won't? Should they add a
question to the college appplication: "Do you promise not to lie in
your business?" No school asks that and almost every student would say
Yes, even if later he changes hir mind. So what did Stanford do wrong?

In a January 19, 2023 prosecution paper, the U.S. Attorneys said, "There are not two systems of justice, one for the wealthy, one for the poor. There is one criminal justice system in this country". How about one for the individual, and one for the

schools who install the elites into power?

Was she an elite when she entered college? Or does anyone in power
become an elite? Who should get positions of power? A-students or D-students? Or who?

I think it's noteworthy for comparison that a wealthy medical CEO Hansjorg Wyss was never prosecuted for his device failures, but he did give Harvard $700 million dollars since 2009. I couldn't find any donations online from Holmes to Stanford.

Stanford has become a very wealthy real estate developer, operating under the non-profit veil, who could pay off Holmes' restitution of hundreds of millions of dollars to the investors.

I had never heard of Hasjorg Wyss before. In his Wikipedia article, he
sounds very good, already giving large amounts of money to
environmental, scientific, and art charities and to democracy-promoting
world organization(s?) and signing the Giving Pledge promising to give,
what, 55% (90%?) of his money to worth organizations. Some people
dislike the political ones such as the Democracy Alliance, but it seems
to me, whether those organizations do good or not, from his pov, they
are selfless gifts.

The one bad thing the wikip article includes is about his medical
corporation promoting the use of a non-FDA-approved adhesive in
orthopedic surgeries. The footnote is to the Washington Examiner and,
even though there are almost always two sides to a story, that article presents the prosecutor's, the FDA's, and the injured patients'
families' opinions but does not give the other side, except implicitly
when it says that his corporation (Synthes) "ordered 60-80 test
procedures without FDA approval." Three patients died but it says
nothing about the results for the other 57 to 77.

I'm certain they thought their adhesive worked, or they would have used
one of the earlier ones. Did they do animal testing? Sufficient animal testing? How much animal testing? Maybe not only did they ignore FDA
rules, maybe they were also negligent. (My brothers a doctor and when
he was in med school in 1962, he complained that the FDA was telling
doctors for what purposes they could prescribe a drug and when they
couldn't, and what was permitted but off-label. I suppose he was
echoing one of his professors, but there are a lot of doctors and
researchers who think the FDA is overly restrictive. That doesn't mean
it is overly restrictive, but it slows them down and they don't like
that.

At any rate 4 of the officers of the company served short jail sentences because of this but Wyss was not charged. Maybe they didn't/couldn't
find that he himself did the improper acts?

When I have time, I'll google his name and look further, but this
example is not parallel to Stanford in the Holmes case. All you have
said that Stanford did wrong is admit her to college. Blaming them for
that is absurd.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Daniel M" wrote in message news:96a4c5e3-027f-4469-9922-557cf19fd98bn@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 12:29:30 PM UTC-7, Roy wrote:

On 6/13/2023 9:44 PM, Daniel M wrote:

The case is now in the 9th Circuit. The basis of the appeal is a mass
of Daubert stuff.

Daniel Myers

In May, the appeals court ruled that Holmes had not raised a
"substantial question" regarding the conduct of her trial or shown that
any trial errors were likely to result in reversal or a sentence shorter
than the 11-year, three-month prison term handed down by U.S. District
Judge Edward Davila.

She is at the federal women’s prison camp in Bryan, Texas which is a
minimum security facility. It was selected to be close to family and is
surrounded by homes and enclosed by chain-link fencing topped with
barbed wire.

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/bry/

Holmes' attorneys never raised a discriminatory prosecution claim over the >exclusion of Stanford University as a defendant. This could otherwise have >raised a "substantial question" for the appeals court so she could avoid
jail pending appeal.

There was no reason to include Stanford as a defendant, as there is no
evidence that they had any involvement in Holmes' fraudulent activities.

Stanford intentionally and purposefully created a salient factor in all of >her dealings through its undergraduate admissions.

There is no evidence for this that would stand up in court.

In a January 19, 2023 prosecution paper, the U.S. Attorneys said, "There are not two systems of justice, one for the wealthy, one for the poor. There is one criminal justice system in this country". How about one for the individual, and one for the schools who install the elites into power?


There is no evidence for this.

I think it's noteworthy for comparison that a wealthy medical CEO Hansjorg >Wyss was never prosecuted for his device failures, but he did give Harvard >$700 million dollars since 2009. I couldn't find any donations online from >Holmes to Stanford. Stanford has become a very wealthy real estate >developer, operating under the non-profit veil, who could pay off Holmes' >restitution of hundreds of millions of dollars to the investors.

I don't know anything about Wyss, but if there is any evidence he committed
the same fraudulent acts as Holmes, then he should of course be prosecuted.
I'm guessing there is no such eviden ce.


--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On June 13, Daniel M wrote:

My thoughts on this are that Stanford University was an indispensable defendant which was never prosecuted, therefore the criminal prosecution-conviction of
Elizabeth Holmes was discriminatory and should have been thrown out of court. If she had
not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by Stanford), the wealthy investors would
have early turned their heads away.

If those investors had rejected her fund raising, she wouldn't
have committed a crime. They enabled and encouraged her behavior.

They are therefore criminally liable for aiding and abetting,
and conspiracy.



--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:d36c89ed-dae3-4373-8867-18fc4e43dd76n@googlegroups.com...

On June 13, Daniel M wrote:

My thoughts on this are that Stanford University was an indispensable
defendant which was never prosecuted, therefore the criminal
prosecution-conviction of
Elizabeth Holmes was discriminatory and should have been thrown out of
court. If she had
not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by Stanford), the
wealthy investors would
have early turned their heads away.

If those investors had rejected her fund raising, she wouldn't
have committed a crime. They enabled and encouraged her behavior.

They are therefore criminally liable for aiding and abetting,
and conspiracy.

It's not aiding and abetting if you don't know you're aiding and abetting.
The investors had no way of knowing she was about to commit fraud.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 21 Jun 2023 20:31:46 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

"RichD" wrote in message >news:d36c89ed-dae3-4373-8867-18fc4e43dd76n@googlegroups.com...

On June 13, Daniel M wrote:

My thoughts on this are that Stanford University was an indispensable
defendant which was never prosecuted, therefore the criminal
prosecution-conviction of
Elizabeth Holmes was discriminatory and should have been thrown out of
court. If she had
not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by Stanford), the
wealthy investors would
have early turned their heads away.

If those investors had rejected her fund raising, she wouldn't
have committed a crime. They enabled and encouraged her behavior.

They are therefore criminally liable for aiding and abetting,
and conspiracy.

It's not aiding and abetting if you don't know you're aiding and abetting. >The investors had no way of knowing she was about to commit fraud.

I think RichD was being sarcastic or using reductio ad absurdum**,
because the people at Stanford U. also had no way of knowing she was
about to commit fraud.

Some people think one should put LOL after a joke and something like
/sarcasm after sarcasm, but I think it ruins the humor. Still, what's
that law that no matter how ridiculous, far more ridiculous than this,
some people on the net will take it seriously.

**Right?

--

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"micky" wrote in message news:kug79ip608nbc32ilbdnqbms4bksujqin6@4ax.com...

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 21 Jun 2023 20:31:46 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

"RichD" wrote in message >>news:d36c89ed-dae3-4373-8867-18fc4e43dd76n@googlegroups.com...

On June 13, Daniel M wrote:

My thoughts on this are that Stanford University was an indispensable
defendant which was never prosecuted, therefore the criminal
prosecution-conviction of
Elizabeth Holmes was discriminatory and should have been thrown out of >>>> court. If she had
not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by Stanford), the
wealthy investors would
have early turned their heads away.

If those investors had rejected her fund raising, she wouldn't
have committed a crime. They enabled and encouraged her behavior.

They are therefore criminally liable for aiding and abetting,
and conspiracy.

It's not aiding and abetting if you don't know you're aiding and abetting. >>The investors had no way of knowing she was about to commit fraud.

I think RichD was being sarcastic or using reductio ad absurdum**,
because the people at Stanford U. also had no way of knowing she was
about to commit fraud.

Some people think one should put LOL after a joke and something like
/sarcasm after sarcasm, but I think it ruins the humor. Still, what's
that law that no matter how ridiculous, far more ridiculous than this,
some people on the net will take it seriously.

**Right?

--

Yep.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On June 21, micky wrote:

If those investors had rejected her fund raising, she wouldn't
have committed a crime. They enabled and encouraged her behavior.
They are therefore criminally liable for aiding and abetting, and conspiracy.

It's not aiding and abetting if you don't know you're aiding and abetting.

I think RichD was being sarcastic or using reductio ad absurdum**,
because the people at Stanford U. also had no way of knowing she was
about to commit fraud.
Some people think one should put LOL after a joke and something like
/sarcasm after sarcasm, but I think it ruins the humor. Still, what's
that law that no matter how ridiculous, far more ridiculous than this,
some people on the net will take it seriously.

https://www.yahoo.com/video/trump-peeved-couldn-t-himself-182937441.html


--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>:

If those investors had rejected her fund raising, she wouldn't
have committed a crime. They enabled and encouraged her behavior.

They are therefore criminally liable for aiding and abetting,
and conspiracy.

I know you meant this as snark, but I'm still surprised there haven't
been civil lawsuits against the Theranos board. It's their job to know
what the company is doing, and it is painfully obvious that they did
not.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

Daniel M wrote:

My thoughts on this are that Stanford University was an
indispensable defendant which was never prosecuted, therefore the
criminal prosecution-conviction of Elizabeth Holmes was
discriminatory and should have been thrown out of court. If she
had not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by
Stanford), the wealthy investors would have early turned their
heads away.

If those investors had rejected her fund raising, she wouldn't
have committed a crime. They enabled and encouraged her behavior.

They are therefore criminally liable for aiding and abetting,
and conspiracy.

They didn't have the requisite intent. They thought they were going
to make money off the technology, not off the ponzi scheme.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On June 14, micky wrote:

If she had not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by Stanford),
the wealthy investors would have early turned their heads away.

So is Stanford supposed to know in advance that she will do bad things,
and then not admit her?

A legal case is preposterous, but on second thought there
is a moral case...

Stanford, along with other elite schools, vaunts their exclusivity.
Not just during the application process, but also the post-
education opportunities. They use this as a sales pitch;
"a Stanford degree opens doors!" There are Wall Street
investment banks which recruit at only a few select schools.

If Holmes had attended UC Davis instead of Stanford, she
wouldn't have got the money, for fact. So it's not completely
wrong to hold them partially liable.

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:35c1fc41-334f-4a94-93a1-71a49e26bdfdn@googlegroups.com...

On June 14, micky wrote:

If she had not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by
Stanford),
the wealthy investors would have early turned their heads away.

So is Stanford supposed to know in advance that she will do bad things,
and then not admit her?

A legal case is preposterous, but on second thought there
is a moral case...

Stanford, along with other elite schools, vaunts their exclusivity.
Not just during the application process, but also the post-
education opportunities. They use this as a sales pitch;
"a Stanford degree opens doors!" There are Wall Street
investment banks which recruit at only a few select schools.

If Holmes had attended UC Davis instead of Stanford, she
wouldn't have got the money, for fact. So it's not completely
wrong to hold them partially liable.

No, they are not even partially liable - because they committed no crime.
By that logic, anyone who had anything to do with Elizabeth's life and
career progression (including her parents for bearing her and her high
school for awarding her the degree that enabled her to apply to college)
would share liability. Under the law, that's not how liability works.
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:54:46 -0700 (PDT), RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

On June 14, micky wrote:

If she had not been admitted to Stanford (thereby sponsored by Stanford), >>> the wealthy investors would have early turned their heads away.

So is Stanford supposed to know in advance that she will do bad things,
and then not admit her?

A legal case is preposterous, but on second thought there
is a moral case...

Stanford, along with other elite schools, vaunts their exclusivity.
Not just during the application process, but also the post-
education opportunities. They use this as a sales pitch;
"a Stanford degree opens doors!" There are Wall Street
investment banks which recruit at only a few select schools.

If Holmes had attended UC Davis instead of Stanford, she
wouldn't have got the money, for fact. So it's not completely
wrong to hold them partially liable.

If she were known to Stanford to have cheated in high school,
plagiarized or had someone write her papers, had someone take her school
tests or SATs for her, of if she were known to have committed crimes,
esp. property crimes like shoplifting or forged checks, or even maybe if
she were known to abuse her parents or torture cats or fight with
classmates (maybe, because the last group is of sins that don't involve cheating or money), but they admitted her because she was great at
hockey, or because her SATs** were so high, or because her grades were
so high, then I can see the possibility of your argument for moral
liability. But I haven't read that she did any of that bad stuff, and certainly not that Stanford knew about her having done some. So to the
school she was no more a moral risk than other freshmen.


**I got into only one law school, and it was I think because my LSATs
were so high, 733, even though my college record was mediocre or worse.
They won't make that mistake again. :-(

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
VS.

ELIZABETH HOLMES
Defendants

PARODY ORDER OF ACQUITTAL

The defendant Elizabeth Holmes was convicted of fraud and sentenced to 11 years in prison in respect to her inventions and imagination of handy medical diagnostic devices, which could do extensive analyses from a single drop of blood instead of
having to draw large samples of patients’ blood into test tubes.
Numerous investors brought in over a $9 billion dollars to support her venture. Since the existing technology for analyzing the small amount of blood was not adequately developed yet, Elizabeth was charged with bilking them for their money.
Upon further analysis of the case, there is no evidence that the investors, jurors, and prosecutors had been screened for a common Santa Clara County malady variously known as “False Goddess Syndrome”, which here reduces to persecution of Ms. Holmes
because they worshipped her as a young goddess from Stanford undergraduate school. The investor “victims” evidently paid monetary penance to her as a goddess in their financial spending. The word “spending” here is not the same as “financial
loss”, because the investors freely and voluntarily spent their money on their religiosity.
We question whether the United States Attorneys should be permitted to move the United States Courts back to the Dark Ages.
Ms. Holmes is undoubtedly a genius. What this means is she constantly lives in a sea of morons. It gets old. It is true that to some extent she may have played them. In U.S. society, genius is not always funded, while stupidity generally is.
From Ms. Holmes’ beauty-contest appearance, it appears that Stanford University admitted her to their undergraduate school under their secret “beauty contest” admission policy. This presumably improved her income capacity from investors and
Stanford’s future donations. But Stanford was never made a criminal defendant along with her.
The case against Elizabeth Holmes is therefore dismissed for failure to join Stanford University as a defendant. Defendant Elizaabeth Holmes is ordered acquitted and discharged. The investors are ordered to pay millions of dollars to this Usenet
poster Daniel Myers (Daniel M).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 25 Jun 2023 22:11:59 -0700 (PDT),
Daniel M <dhmatbestdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:

The case against Elizabeth Holmes is therefore dismissed for failure to join Stanford University as a defendant. Defendant Elizaabeth Holmes is ordered acquitted and discharged. The investors are ordered to pay millions of dollars to this Usenet

poster Daniel Myers (Daniel M).

Ths is even easier to do than what she did. I'll have to try it in
another ng.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:24:46 PM UTC-7, micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 25 Jun 2023 22:11:59 -0700 (PDT),
Daniel M <dhmatbe...@gmail.com> wrote:

The case against Elizabeth Holmes is therefore dismissed for failure to join Stanford University as a defendant. Defendant Elizaabeth Holmes is ordered acquitted and discharged. The investors are ordered to pay millions of dollars to this Usenet

poster Daniel Myers (Daniel M).

Ths is even easier to do than what she did. I'll have to try it in
another ng.
--

snip

I was hoping to get back here on this sooner. I wanted to first read the U.S. Attorney's response brief but its due date has been postponed to Aug 17th.

Here is what I posted yesterday in Yahoo Finance in the article "Ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes to be released from prison 2 years early"
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-125457642.html?ref=upstract.com

-- She (Holmes) shouldn't be in prison at all. It's really the fault of the investors as worshippers of Stanford, race, and sex. The media has behaved like an Orwellian AI-GPT hate spin against her. I don't buy it.

Soon, the China and Russia will have a prosecutorial Chat AI GPT on every U.S. leader in every capacity. --

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Daniel M" wrote in message news:7d500af3-2628-4a3c-96a2-38ef3cf5f846n@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:24:46 PM UTC-7, micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 25 Jun 2023 22:11:59 -0700 (PDT),
Daniel M <dhmatbe...@gmail.com> wrote:

The case against Elizabeth Holmes is therefore dismissed for failure to
join Stanford University as a defendant. Defendant Elizaabeth Holmes is
ordered acquitted and discharged. The investors are ordered to pay
millions of dollars to this Usenet poster Daniel Myers (Daniel M).

Ths is even easier to do than what she did. I'll have to try it in
another ng.
--

snip

I was hoping to get back here on this sooner. I wanted to first read the >U.S. Attorney's response brief but its due date has been postponed to Aug >17th.

Here is what I posted yesterday in Yahoo Finance in the article
"Ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes to be released from prison 2 years early" >https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-125457642.html?ref=upstract.com

-- She (Holmes) shouldn't be in prison at all. It's really the fault of the >investors as worshippers of Stanford, race, and sex. The media has behaved >like an Orwellian AI-GPT hate spin against her. I don't buy it.

Soon, the China and Russia will have a prosecutorial Chat AI GPT on every >U.S. leader in every capacity. --

The reason she is in prison is that she committed fraud, which is a crime.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 12 Jul 2023 08:25:33 -0700 (PDT),
Daniel M <dhmatbestdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:24:46 PM UTC-7, micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 25 Jun 2023 22:11:59 -0700 (PDT),
Daniel M <dhmatbe...@gmail.com> wrote:

The case against Elizabeth Holmes is therefore dismissed for failure to join Stanford University as a defendant. Defendant Elizaabeth Holmes is ordered acquitted and discharged. The investors are ordered to pay millions of dollars to this Usenet

poster Daniel Myers (Daniel M).

Ths is even easier to do than what she did. I'll have to try it in
another ng.
--

snip

I was hoping to get back here on this sooner. I wanted to first read the U.S. Attorney's response brief but its due date has been postponed to Aug 17th.

Here is what I posted yesterday in Yahoo Finance in the article "Ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes to be released from prison 2 years early"
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-125457642.html?ref=upstract.com

-- She (Holmes) shouldn't be in prison at all. It's really the fault of the investors as worshippers of Stanford, race, and sex. The media has behaved like an Orwellian AI-GPT hate spin against her. I don't buy it.

Soon, the China and Russia will have a prosecutorial Chat AI GPT on every U.S. leader in every capacity. --

It was not clear here that the previous 3 lines were your comment on
the yahoo page. Only one comment was visible without clicking Story
Continues and Show More Comments.

In Yahoo and here, I can't tell which side you are on. I can't tell
when you're being sarcastic, versus serious. I thought you were
sarcastic when I first replied, 2 posts ago, but this one is much more
obscure.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)